Ethics During and After the Holocaust: The Ethics of Forgiveness: John K. Roth

To Roth, forgiveness means "to be merciful, to pardon an offense or an offender, to give up a claim against another individual, to set aside a debt, to relinquish anger or resentment, however justifiable those feelings may be, to free a person from the burden of guilt." This makes forgiveness both an after-word and a wounded word.

Who needs forgiveness? Everyone, Roth says - human kind needs forgiveness - but this question can be asked in two ways. "Who needs forgiveness?" and "Who needs forgiveness?" The first places doubt about everyone having a need for it, while the latter questions the virtue of forgiveness. The latter leads to indifference, condoning, or trivialization instead of justice.

Using history, of the bible, Roth notes that God's anger is powerful, but that his mercy and forgiveness are more present despite the tension between the two. As beings made in his image, Roth believes that we should show mercy and forgiveness to liken that image. The holocaust complicated this, and now Roth thinks that advocacy for forgiveness needs to come from other sources such as ethics. Many holocaust survivors haven't even been able to discuss forgiveness. We are duped though if we assume that forgiveness is the same in every instance.

Writer Primo Levi wrote that forgiveness requires the other party to have an earnest will to be forgiven, otherwise it does no good. It also shows that forgiveness is voluntary. For genuine repentance requires condemning and rooting out the wrong done as well as acting to do so as soon as possible - the sooner the better. Deathbed confessions maybe sincere, but they do little good as the person will soon die. The dead can also not forgive.

Like love, forgiveness must be given freely; or it is not real.

That said it is also important to grant forgiveness if it is sincerely and constantly sought. Not doing so come dangerously close to mercilessness, which removes humanity from the world.

Heschel writes that "only sins committed against God can be forgiven by God." The holocaust was a sin against God, and is forgivable by him - but does he forgive is the question. Elie Wiesel did not believe that God should, as that would suppress the feelings of guilt that the offenders had.

Roth points to six ethics of forgiveness

1. Forgiveness is needed to stop unnecessary suffering from continuing.
2. Although needed, forgiveness can lead to less accountability and reduce the condemnation of injustice 
3. Sincere repentance must be required with efforts to right wrongs
4. Forgiveness can not be spoken for another person
5. Many deeds are unforgivable because the dead can't forgive
6. Forgiveness is a gift and can only be freely given

Discussion Questions/Comments

Do Jews believe that children don't go to Heaven if they aren't "confirmed" (bar mitzvah?)?

Is there a reason that God needs to forgive all the Jewish children who died in the holocaust?

I almost had an issue with deeds being unforgivable, but the dead part makes sense. It begs the question, can't the dead, if you believe in an afterlife, forgive those that sinned against them? You can be forgiven and not know it.

Ethics During and After the Holocaust: Duped by Morality: John K. Roth

Roth claims our own plans, dispositions, and actions as the biggest culprits to why we get deceived so often. Morality though is not something we usually think as being misleading, rather we believe that it leads us in the right direction all the time. The holocaust showed how much we had actually ben duped by morality.

There are three clear examples in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle.

1. "Never again!" is deceptively reassuring as it only shows a desire to prevent ones own destruction
2. "The killing will stop" shows that we only hope we value life enough killings will stop, not actual results
3. Retribution, it is mistaken as a form that will teach a lesson. Winning a fight does not mean peace, just the end of the current fight

Roth feels that Christians owe Jews a debt we can never repay, because Christians took part in isolating Jews over centuries, helping the holocaust to happen in the end. Roth believes that a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would only bring a short term solution to the conflict, believe otherwise people would be duping themselves.


Discussion Questions/Comments

So is the PCUSA saying they want to support Palestinians financially? Or was the divestment creating more capital for...what?

So I was confused what the PCUSA story of divestment had to do with duped morality. I just saw that they changed their stance on the value of investing money into Israel. What morality were they duped by?



Key Terms/Definitions

Divestment: the action or process of selling off subsidiary business interests or investments

Ethics During and After the Holocaust: Grey Zones and Double-Binds: Holocaust challenges to ethics: John K. Roth

Roth mentions that Kant asked three questions: What can I know, what should I do, and what may I hope? The second is the one focused on ethics and morals, a question that makes ethics as old as human existence. Our actions force us to face what is just or unjust, right or wrong, and good or evil - forcing ethics into play. Ethics are also influenced by our value judgements and institutions. This brings up the question of objective vs. subjective ethics. Are there ones that are universal or will culture influence a person's decision? Ethics would not be ethics if they didn't force us to have critical inquiry, which is good because judgments can be mistaken.

Roth worries that we as people won't take ethics serious enough in the future. He brings up John Rawls and the "Vail of Ignorance." When placed behind the vail, we don't know our role in the world. This forces us to make decisions not based on ourselves but how we would want the situation to be if we were any other person in the situation. Right and wrong would be easier to establish as it would have to be considered reasonable from every party or at least as many as possible.

If humans knew everything then we wouldn't need critical ethical reflection and thought. Often conflict is caused by people disagreeing with what is right and what is wrong. The Grey Zone, as defined by Primo Levi, is where there is no complete clarity in ethics despite efforts to remove ambiguity. When ethics face the grey zone and come out with less "appeal" then trust in the moral world is lost. This grey zone helps to show that failure.

Roth believes that the conscious plays a huge role in ethics, but each individuals is not the same. We each possess the ability to think but the judgements and values we use are different. This is evident through the Nazi conscience, as they all acted in ways they thought were right and good. Racial hygiene was one such example, protecting the German Genetic Stream

Nazi conscience and ethics can be condensed into three main pieces.

1. Germans are different from every other group of people
2. German purity is the most important of issues and leads to prosperity
3. Germans should put German people's interests before self interest

These three parts lead to a nationalism that moved for ethnic cleaning, violence for the sake of the nation, and progress to prevent the nation from decay. It was a code of ethics because they called for integrity, communal solidarity, self-sacrifice, loyalty, courage, patritism and hardness - values and virtues that are good in themselves. (There was also the unwillingness to feel for enemies as a value) These virtues helped to justify the horrible actions in the holocaust. This is problematic, as we traditionally see ethics as things that produce good not evil.

Roth says that there are "ethical pit falls" when it comes to saying we study the holocaust for ethical reasons. The first is that triviality and banality must be avoided! The second part is that the holocaust can't be preempted, rather it must be accepted as what is and the full extent of what happened. This means avoiding ethical judgements that can't stand the questioning of the shadow of the Birkenau. The Birkenau was the "final solution" killing machine used to mass murder jews.

Roth brings up Sarah Kofman, who induced the idea of knotted words. These are words that want out but that are suppressed because of being forced to be contained for so long. They are painful and difficult to start or continue. Roth states that these are what Double-binds are - a duty to speak and yet the almost physical impossibility of speaking, words choked off.

The holocaust has created an obligation for ethics to be spoken about, but a double-bind is created by the horrible fear that too much damage has been done for recovery - ethics are overwhelmed with no chance.

Despite the nazi attempt to destroy humanity, it showed that there is an "indestructible unity." You can kill a person but that does not change that they are still a person. What we can take is that it is important to support the community of people who don't have a community.

Discussion Questions/Comments

I love how thoughtful inquiry is part of our mission statement

I like Rawls vail of ignorance, but I feel like it would be really hard to follow. Throughout the ethical decision making process you would still be subconsciously influenced by your own situation.

I find it really interesting how the "ten commandments for pick a spouse" was designed to act much like the real ten commandments or bible, both in form, order, and feel of content.

It is scary that these writers killed themselves (Pg. 90) after making it out of such a horrible experience, the world in my mind would be so much better. Did they lose all hope in the world for good, despite the improvement of their lives?

Key Terms/Definitions

Institution: a society or organization founded for a religions, educational, social, or similar purpose
The Grey Zone:
Decalogue: the ten commandments
Banality: so lacking in originality it is obvious

Ethics During and After the Holocaust: Why Study the Holocaust?: John K. Roth

Roth asks the question of why we study the holocaust. Despite sixty years having passed we still see genocide, ethnic cleansing, and mass murder. Begs the most difficult of possibilities - maybe, despite all our efforts and the good they could potentially produce, learning about the holocaust is a waste of resources and time. Facing this question, he asks us to look deeper at the ethical yearnings and aspirations that stand at the core of holocaust studies.

Roth labels the holocaust as an "immense human failure." Ethics were harmed because it was shown that ethical teaching could be overridden or subverted to unethical ends. Many stood as bystanders while many more participated despite the unethical treatment of fellow humans. The status of moral norms were skewed by how so many people let these deaths happened. We have placed more importance on human rights and stopping crimes against humanity. Sharing the words and of ideas of Amery Maier, Roth shows us that the experience of help is a fundamental experience of being human - when help wasn't given we damaged the trust in the world that help would come.

Even one of the basic needs, Home, was destroyed for millions of people in the holocaust. Not just the places we live, but also the relationships, the safety, and the love we possess. It is true that homes recover in a sense, never the same as before but they still recover. Morals have continued to exist despite human's destructive power against its own kind but power has and clearly can be misused.

Genocide in some shape or form has always targeted children in some shape or form. Killing off children stops a people from growing both in population and culturally. Destroy those children, or totally ruin the culture and the existence of a people will disappear. If we would instead care for the world's children, not just our own, then Roth believes that we could overcome all genocide. The quality of human life depends on putting children first. Holocaust education reminds us to do just that. Roth asked the question of why we should study the holocaust. The answer is to teach that we should put children first, the priority of our existence.

Roth begs us to remember, take nothing good for granted.


Discussion Questions/Comments

What is moral relativism exactly?

One of the scariest parts for me is that the best way to destroy a people is to attack its weakest and brightest future - children.



Key Terms/Definitions

Impugned: despite the truth, validity, or honestly of (a statement or motive); call into question

The Transvaluation of Values: Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche claims that there are two types of morality exists - master-morality and slave-morality, the foremost found in the ruling class while the ruled posses the latter. Master-morality is where the master is the judge and creator of values - a morality that is self-glorification. Slave-morality refines the values of the masters with a filter of distrust while any virtues that remove or alleviate the pains of life are valued. Slave-morality is essentially the morality of utility. These two types of morality have led to the "famous antithesis of good and evil" where power and dangerousness are assumed to reside in evil. Slave-morality believes that the evil man arouses fear while master-morality believes that it is the good man who arouses fear, and actively does so. Master-morality looks at good vs. bad while slave-morality looks at good vs. evil. In slave-morality resentment plays a role in the creation of its values, creating hatred changing the master's idea of bad into evil.

Nietzsche believes that the more barbarian of man, the more noble, is the cause for greater creativity and intelligence, even though they prey on the weaker more civilized and moral people. The barbarian (noble) superiority is not just about their physical power but their psychical power, making a more complete man (and beasts). Slave-moralism values disapprove of creative egoism that is the core of master-moralism. This can be seen in how they value altruism, which devalues the person for the safety of another, showing the unimportance of the first individual.

Nietzsche then claims that the suppression of violence, mutual pain, and exploitation is a Will to the denial of life. Nietzsche claims that this is the principle, of denial of life, leads to "decay and dissolution."
Nietzsche claims that the definition of life is: stealing, injury, the strong beating the weak, suppression, bad experiences, incorporation, and exploitation. Those that survive become stronger and grow from the Will of Power - the essence of what life really is.

Nietzsche regards Christianity to be the most fatal and seductive lie ever created - he would have man attack it in open war. He believes that Christianity creates the "morality of paltry people." Paltry people destroy life. Judaism is no better. Both these faiths enable people to further weaken themselves. Nature is removed from morality when people are told to "love your enemies." God removes utility from morals. The origin of morality (nature) is removed by faith - the destruction of a natural (inborn?) morality.

Because of the destruction of the Will of Power and egoism by these faiths, they destroy the evolutionary power of people.

Nietzsche believes that moral philosophers also call for the destruction of life. He believes that philosophers who say people seek happiness are unwilling to answer the truth, power, because that would be an immoral answer. Moral philosophers call for virtues to reach happiness. Nietzsche claims that pleasure is a sensation of power - and if passions are excluded, you prevent the greatest sensations of power and therefore pleasure. For this reason Nietzsche says that consciousness is not the highest state supreme state of mind, but the opposite is - I presume he refers to the natural instinct of barbarianism within people.

Nietzsche promotes cruelty, which he says in rooted in our "high culture." In fact, he promotes anything horrible motives to human kind, as he believes that they help raise humanity - the exact opposite of all modern ideology.

Nietzsche believes that the philosophers of the future will better understand that appealing to people is not necessary and that all forms of human misery are necessary to promote. "Common Good" will not be sought, as common things have little value.

Nietzsche hopes there will be a transvaluation of values, so that the Will of Power will take prominence.


Discussion Questions/Comments

What does Nietzsche mean by the pathos of distance?

Does Nietzsche really mean "psychical power" or does he actually mean mental/intellectual power? In #4 he uses psychical alone - does he mean psychology now?

Can you explain Nietzsche's use of capital "Will"?

Is Nietzsche's definition of Utility his own or the same as Mill's or Sidgwick's?

By nature morality, does he mean natural or intuitive/inborn morality?

In #8 is Nietzsche talking about physical sensations when talking about "passions?"

Key Terms/Definitions

Juxtapose: place or deal with close together for contrasting effect
Antithesis: a person or thing that is the direct opposite of someone or something else
Pathos: Feelings
Altruism: the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others
Egoism: an ethical theory that treats self-interest as the foundation of morality
Emasculate: make weaker or less effective
Transvaluation: to alter someone's judgement or reactions

Appropriation: the action of taking something for one's own use, typically without the owners permission
Paltry: small or meager
Dialectics: the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions
Dogmatism: the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others

Link to Reading: https://ereserve.plu.edu/protected/phil/b125_nietzsche.pdf

Duty and Reason: Immanuel Kant

According to Kant, nothing is wholly good because they can always be attached to some bad or be misused for bad. Be it mental talents, character or gifts of good fortune they, in themselves, are not good. The only thing that can be called good is good will. Good will is not good because of what it achieves, although it can produce results of good. good will is good by virtue of its existence, the sole purpose to produce good. Whether it produces that good or not, it in itself is good.

Kant says that happiness is not a product of reason but rather reason actually reduces peoples happiness. Reason instead must help people to produce good will. Kant says that this will, produced through reason, "must be the supreme good and the condition of every other", including the desire of happiness.

To better explain good will, Kant takes the "notion of duty" into his explanation. A good will is a will that acts for duty and actions are only moral if they are drivin by duty, good will in turn. Acting when duty is the only reason to act is morally right. Duty does not have to be pleasant, just morally right. Just because a behavior is praiseworthy does not mean that it is a moral action. We have many inclinations that drive us to do praiseworthy actions, those good actions aren't moral unless they are driven by duty alone.

Again, Kant reinforces that moral worth, like good will, is not judged by the product of actions but rather  by the principles that guided the actions - duty. He defines duty as "the necessity of acting from respect for the law." Inclinations, at best, may be approved, but Kant does not believe that they can be respected. Actions done by duty exclude inclinations, leaving only the law which has pure respect. Morals must lie in the "conception of the law, which is only possible in a reasonable being."

Kant believes that the supreme principle or law of morality is the "categorical imperative." Imperatives are things that people ought to do, which shows the connection of reason to a will. Hypothetically imperatives are ones that have a practical necessity of a possible action as a means to something that is willed. Categorical imperatives are where the actions are necessary in themselves - not for another mean to an end. Categorical are good in themselves (if will and reason are connected) while Hypothetical are means to other ends.

Kant believes that there is only one categorical imperative that we should follow: Act only on a maxim that you can will to be a universal law. These maxims for moral action must have no contradictions and should maintain the purity of its purpose/will.

Kant's ideas of categorical imperative have social implications. We must treat people as a end in themselves not a means to an end outside of the relationship that you have. "Things" are means to an end while "persons" are means to themselves.

When the principle is complete, it must follow two rules: First, people should be respected as ends in themselves and second, any moral maxim followed must be universally followable.



Discussion Questions/Comments

Can a person's "good will" be caused by an inclination? Isn't good will an inclination in itself?

I really liked Kant's definition of happiness! It mades a lot of sense to me.

I have become confused (starting in #9) if Kant means good will every time he says will. Is all will produced by reason good will, since reason was used to create it?

With the one categorical imperative that we should follow, does Kant mean that we should only act on moral maxims that are reasoned with good will and should be law?

Key Terms/Definitions

Inclination: a person's tendency or urge to act or feel in a particular way; a disposition or propensity
Happiness: contentment with one's condition
Maxim: a short, pithy statement expressing a general truth or rule of conduct (ex: actions speak louder than words)



Link to Reading: https://ereserve.plu.edu/protected/phil/b125_kant.pdf

Ethical Skepticism: Bernard Williams

Socrates asks "How should one live?" Plato thought the answer lay in following a life of philosophical understanding.

Williams looks at the work of Socrates and Plato, who attempt to justify morality to amoral people. Williams asks why philosophers should even bother, as they are dealing with people who will be unmoved by their arguments. Williams believes that the reason we try to convince these people is because they might influence individuals to give up morality and live an unethical life. Williams says "to be skeptical about ethics is to be skeptical about the force of ethical considerations." These people must not be assumed to live lives that lack ethical considerations, but rather question what the force of these ethical considerations are. Skeptics interact with the world and must find actions they approve of or do cheerfully, removing skepticism away as the skeptic has just made an ethical decision. By removing oneself from all ethics, one has nothing to do.

Williams feels that we should not ask what to say to the amoral person but what we can say about them, as that message will reach the rest of the population who has morals - providing support and reinforcement of morals to the people who will actually listen, those with morals, instead of the amoral who won't listen. When it comes to force, Williams explains that Plato thought, "the power of the ethical was the power of reason", and that the power of the ethical was made into a force by the power of reason. The aim then should be to focus on reinforcing the ethical rather than attacking the unethical.

Williams asks if there is a Archimedean Point, and notes that both Aristotle and Kant have philosophical "ventures" that follow his own definition: something to which even the amoralist or the skeptic is committed but which, properly thought through, will show us that he is irrational, or unreasonable, or at any rate mistaken." Kant follows rational action (agency) and Aristotle thought that it is "the idea of a specifically human life." Williams says that there is no such Archimedean Point and says that he hopes people will adopt three things to help prompt ethics: truth, truthfulness, and the meaning of an individual life.

Williams proclaims that the scientific truth does not provide us with anything normative - possessing facts does not change people's behavior (smokers still smoke despite its known harm). This knowledge can have an impact though when we look at the social understanding we have.

The reason Williams says we should seek truthfulness is because our ethical thought should "stand up to reflection, with the goal of its institutions and practices should be capable of becoming transparent." If our ethics can't be transparent, then what are we hiding? We need to be truthful about our ethics so that people can know how ethical they really are.

Williams needs for "individuals of dispositions of characters" and "a life of their own to lead" for his hopes to be reached. As for the "meaning of an individual life", he looks for "one that does not reject society, and indeed shares its perceptions with other people to a considerable depth, but is enough unlike others, in its opacities and disorder as well as in its reasoned intentions, to make it somebody's." He wants people to understand each other, maintain that truthfulness, and to make the principle of general goodness someone else's principle so that they too can add to the world happiness.


Discussion Questions/Comments

Could you explain what Mill means by "One has nothing to do" in #5? Does he mean there is no meaning to an amoral person's life?

What does Aristotle mean by a "specifically human life?"

Key Terms/Definitions

Philosophical: general and abstract, rationally reflective, and concerned with what can be known through different kinds of inquiry
Amoral: lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness and wrongness of something
Archimedean Point: a point where the viewer can objectively perceive the subject of inquiry, with a view of totality
Normative: establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard of a norm, especially of behavior.


Phrenology: the detailed study of the size and shape of the cranium as a supposed indication of character and mental abilities

The Greatest Happiness Principle: John Stuart Mill

Mill's starts off by clarifying what Utilitarianism is not to defend it from misrepresentation and the lack of connection of utility to pleasure and pain. People either remove pleasure completely from the picture or they make utility all about pleasure, both ends of the spectrum misrepresent what philosophers have written about Utility.

"Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." Mill instead states that pleasure and freedom from pain (or unhappiness) are the only desirable ends. Everything that is desirable is desired because of the pleasure they provide or they promote pleasure or reduce pain.

Part of the misunderstanding of utility is caused by not recognizing that there are different kinds and intensities to pleasure. Epicurean theory of life assigns pleasure to intellect, feelings, imagination, and moral sentiments - much higher values of pleasure than the pleasures of sensation. Mental pleasures have taken priority of the physical, especially when they involve permanence, such as safety. There are kinds of pleasure that are more desirable and valuable than others, and quantity of pleasure is more important than quality.

Mill believes that the superiority of a pleasure is determined by a person who has experienced both - these people will also prefer pleasures of "higher faculties." A person with high faculties requires more to make them happy and can suffer more intense pain but they would never want to be a lower being. Mill says that those who chose lower over higher pleasures do so because they can not obtain the higher. Men lose their high aspirations as they lose their intellectual tastes, as they have neither the time nor the opportunity to reach their higher faculties.

Mill adds quality and quantity to the "Greatest Happiness Principle", saying that we should seek the richest amount of enjoyment and seek to reduce pain - in the greatest extent possible as to include all of mankind and not just the individual.

One of the attacks on Utilitarianism is that it is impossible to obtain happiness, Mill agrees but only if you are arguing that a life of happiness is one of continuously high pleasure. Mill realistically says that happiness often only lasts for moments - with a few exceptions. Utilitarianism is focused on obtaining a life with few pains in-between many moments of various pleasure - a happy life, not an unobtainable perfect life.

Another attack is that Utilitarianism removes self sacrifice, valued by our christian culture, because of the focus on pleasure and the avoidance of pain, which could be caused by self sacrifice. Mill states that Utilitarianism recognizes the power sacrifice has to increase the good for all, but the sacrifice itself is good, which makes sense as the act is often painful or doesn't produce pleasure. Sacrifice must increase the good of all to not be a waste.

Mill says "to do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbor as oneslef, constitue the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality." These morals call for aligning the happiness, or interest, of each individual with the interest of the whole group as much as possible.

Mill acknowledges that individuals do not always take the greatest social concern into mind because social concern (golden rule) isn't a motive, it is a measurement for judgement and sanctions. Most actions are done for individuals, but that happiness adds to the happiness of the world - as long as the rights of happiness of others isn't violated.

For Utilitarianism to work, people must adopt the morality of this principle. When people adopt utility, they do so because they feel an obligation to it. In turn, people derive obligation from the principles. The external sanctions enforce Utilitarianism but it is the internal sanctions provide the ultimate sanctions. External sanctions are often the hope of gaining favor from others or "fear of displeasure". The internal sanctions is duty - the essence of Conscience. The feelings in our own minds become the ultimate sanction.

It does not matter whether feelings for humanity are born with us or developed in the world, as both have the same result, powerful sentiment that gives way to general happiness as an ethical standard.


Discussion Questions/Comments

In my communication ethics course we were taught that Mill is all about doing the most good for the greatest group of people possible. Pleasure and good aren't the same thing, clearly not connecting to what we taught. Do you think that the reason we were taught this interpretation is because of the desire of Mill to avoid pain? Or because of the part where Mill wants to align the "interest" of each individual?

Was Epicurus one of the first philosophers for Utilitarianism, or was he just one of the strongest defenders?

How did Mill impact the world view of utility?

Why does Mill say that we should focus on quantity of pleasures rather than quality? Is he talking about length of pleasure being more important? Or did I get his meaning backwards and he actually approves of greater quality?



Key Terms/Definitions

Contradistinguished: to differentiate by means of contrasting or opposing qualities
Inveterate: having a particular habit, activity, or interest that is long-established and unlikely to change
Faculties: an inherent mental or physical power


Link to Reading: https://ereserve.plu.edu/protected/phil/b125_mill.pdf

Utilitarianism Revised: Henry Sidgwick

As it is not defined, it is important to understand that utilitarianism is the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.

Right off the bat Sidgwick asks if our intuition could gain true clearness and certainty.  Sidgwick mentions Philosophical Intuitionism as a possible answer to this question, but he doesn't go on to explain what it is. Using the Mac Dictionary, I discovered that Intuitionism is "theory that primary truths and principles (especially those of ethics and metaphysics) are know directly by intuition."
Sidgwick says that a philosopher purpose is "to tell men what they ought to think, rather than what they do think." This of course is led by common senese but may deviate from common sense in the conclusions but always within limit as their work will be scrutinized.

It remains important to exercise caution with principles, as to not mistake principles that are not self-evident for ones that are self-evident (sham-axioms for genuine ones). Sidgwick attributes this to not correctly identifying the tautology of the principle and that all of us make mistakes, no matter how powerful the intellect. By changing the meaning of the words around they can be made to sound self-evident, even if they aren't.

Sidgwick also notices that "a self-evident principle cannot be so abstract that it fails to provided specific moral guidance." If you look closely at the Golden Rule, treat others as you wish to be treated, you can see why this is not a principle. The Golden Rule is extremely very vague, clearly not giving a specific moral guidance that can be applied. Due to its popularity, many people say that it is a sound principle that gives the guidance to always treat people justly. What these people forget is that the Golden Rule can be reversed to produce vice. A man may be willing to get a friend to commit a crime for him, and in turn be willing to commit one for his friend. Because the "Golden" Rule doesn't explicitly say how to treat people, with complete guidance it loses its value as a principle. Instead the principle of justice is better as it gives a more specific moral guidance.

Sidgwick defines prudence as that "of impartial concern for all parts of our conscious life." He continues to explain the self-evidence in prudence. By making sure that we define prudence more, we make sure to avoid tautology as the meaning can't be twisted into making a decision for the good of a single a moment in time instead of the greater good in the future, the principle's intended meaning.

Sidgwick then isolates the self-evident rational benevolence principle, what good is to people who realize  they are an "integral parts of society." By comparing different good, we come to the notion that there  is a Universal Good, where no one single good for an individual is better than a good for another individual, from the view of all existence. With this in mind, we should act for good in general not just a specific area of good. From this, we can deduce that everyone is morally bound to consider the good of any other individual as well as their own - benevolence.

Sidgwick believes that it is rational benevolence that sets utilitarianism apart and why John Stuart Mill's attempt to create a foundation for utilitarianism fails. Sidgwick believes that Mill's explanation of the "principle of Utility" and the proof he uses is not plain or easy enough to understand. (Funny, I thought that Sidgwick could be written more clearly about his argument here...) Mill argues for "the greatest amount of happiness altogether" as the ultimate "end of human action" and the "standard of morality." Mill says that desirable things are produced because people desire them. Happiness is desirable because people desire happiness. We know happiness is good because an individuals happiness adds to the general happiness, spreading happiness to the world in general.
Sidgwick's issue is that Mill says general happiness is desirable, instead of general happiness being something an individual ought to desire, something he feels Mill does not establish, even if happiness is "desirable".

Sidgwick also makes the point that pleasure is not just obtained by achieving an ideal, but by the going after that ideal.

Discussion Questions/Comments


I didn't really follow #7, where Sidwick tried to clarify what desirable consciousness is...at all.

Although Sidgwick stated he had an issue with Mill not having a strong enough proof, I didn't see how happiness "ought to be desirable" warranted Sidgwick to say Mill's case was completely flawed.



Key Terms/Definitions

Utilitarianism: the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.
Intuitionism: theory that primary truths and principles (especially those of ethics and metaphysics) are know directly by intuition.
Axioms: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, and self-evidently true
Tautology: a phase or expression that is said twice with different words; (logic) a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form
Prudence (Sidgwick): of impartial concern for all parts of our conscious life."




Onus probandi: the obligation to prove an assertion or allegation one makes; the burden of proof
Pro tanto: to such an extent; to that extent
Viz.: namely; in other words
Ulterior: existing beyond what is obvious or admitted; intentionally hidden

Link to Reading: https://ereserve.plu.edu/protected/phil/b125_sidgwick.pdf

Morality and Sentiment: David Hume

Hume's main focus is on one question in this reading: Does our morality come from our rational nature (reason) or our passional nature (Sentiment)? Both sides of the argument have developed full and complete claim as to why their side is sound in its reasoning, as well was pointing out the faults in the argument of the other side. 

Hume suggests that it is possible that BOTH sides are sound, and in turn, possibly both work to make moral decisions at the same time. In many instances we start with the instant reaction of sentiment but without the ability to reason we lack the ability to explain why we have sentiment. In other cases though, such as fine art, we require reasoning in order to produce the feelings of sentiment.

Although it is possible for both sides to work together, Hume claims that only one (reason or sentiment) can be the ultimate source of morality. The first reason Hume believes that the source cannot fall to reason, is because as morality is practical. Interestingly enough, reason does not spring people to action - making reason unable to be the cause of moral conduct. 

"What is honorable, what is fair, what is becoming, what is noble, what is generous, takes possession of the heart, and animates us to embrace and maintain it. What is intelligible, what is evident, what is probable, what is true, procures only cool assent of the understanding; and gratifying a speculative curiosity, puts an end to our research."

Without passion and warm feelings we have for virtue (sentiment), morality loses its practical study and its ability to impact our lives and actions.

The second reason Hume believes the source is not reason: despite our ability to know all the objective facts about a immoral situation, the wrongness of a person's actions cannot be found on a set list where we have created set moral judgments.

Reason either judges a matter of fact or matters of relations. 

Matters of fact are Crimes - a moral action where things are done against people who have shown good will to the offender. There is also a contrariety relationship though between the offender and the victim. In the end, "moral relationships are determined by the comparison of action to a rule. And that rule is determined by considering the moral relationships of objects."

Because of these two reasons, Hume believes that sentiment must be the source of (and determines) morality. That said, reason plays a role in rendering moral decisions. In to order understand situations we must know all the circumstances and the relationships, in order to distinguish new understanding through reason. Processing the circumstance, relationships, and the understandings through reason influence us to create new impressions in our sentiment, which we then use to make moral decisions.

Hume says that there are two great societal virtues - benevolence and justice, with the first being universally valued. Justice, on the other hand, sole reason is for utility as it gives action when virtue is idle - unworkable or unnecessary. The rules of inequity and justice rely solely on the state and condition in which man is placed.

"Personal merit consists altogether in the possession of mental qualities, useful or agreeable to the person himself or others."

Hume believes that some of an individuals passions do not come from personal concern, but a person's morality is based on sentiments having their origin of concern for others. These sentiments are universally shared because they are not influenced by personal considerations.

Virtues are items of personal merit. Anything that holds the same usefulness or agreeableness that is characteristic of personal merit are virtues.

Discussion Questions/Comments 

On page 138, Hume starts talking about how their is a distinction between fact and one of right and how it effects whether a person is a criminal or not. What is the difference between a mistake of fact and a mistake of right? Is he just talking about a mistake of morals is a mistake of right?

On page 141 right before 10, Hume is talking about justice and its necessity being derived from property and the need of ownership because of the labor it takes to produce enjoyments. Is this what Hume is really trying to say, or am I not following him correctly?

Key Terms/Definitions

Reason: a cause, explanation, or justification

Sentiment: A view or attitude toward a situation / Feeling or emotion
Virtue: whatever mental action or quality gives to a spectator the pleasing sentiment of approbation

Personal Merit: Mental qualities that arouse the sentiment of approbation


Amiable: having or displaying friendliness and pleasant manner

Odious: extremely unpleasant, repulsive

Beget: To bring into existence by reproduction; To give rise to/bring about

Speculative: engaged in, expressing, or based on opinion rather than knowledge; involving high risk

Crime: a moral action where things are done against people who have shown good will to the offender.

Contrariety: opposition or inconsistency between two or more things; contrary opposition
Laudable: deserving praise and commendation
Approbation: approval or praise
Requisite: made necessary by particular circumstances or regulations

Link to Reading: https://ereserve.plu.edu/protected/phil/b125_hume.pdf

Ethics and The Good Life

Pacific Lutheran University - Philosophy 125

This J-Term I get the great opportunity to travel and study in Europe. The focus, Ethics and The Good Life. This marks the fourth class I have had where ethical actions and thought have been involved - only this time I will get to travel through England, Germany, and Greece! The purpose of this blog is to summarize all the different readings I will have to do for my trip. This will require me to do three things:

• Define key terms
• Highlight key points 
• Develop some clarity on the argument

Throughout these readings I need to focus on the bigger picture and bring up questions for our class discussions. I hope to also do Journal entries throughout my trip, which can be read HERE.

The authors/books I will be reading are as follows:

1. Week One (Collected first full day in Cambridge):
1. Hume
2. Sidgwick
3. Mill
4. Williams
2. Week Two (Collected first full day in Berlin)
1. Kant
2. Nietzsche
3. Roth - Chapter 2 
4. Roth - Chapter 5
5. Roth - Chapter 7
6. Roth - Chapter 8
3. Week Three (Collected first day in Athens)
1. Cahill
2. Aristotle
3. Plato’s Symposium
4. Trial and Death of Socrates
4. Week Three into Final Week (Collected on first day in Nafplio)
1. Remainder of Cahill Book
2. Epicurus
3. Epictetus
4. Lear

With two and a half weeks ahead of me of break, I hope to complete as many of my readings and summaries as possible so that I can better enjoy my time experiencing European culture and life.